Posts Tagged ‘search’

Why You Want the Link Love

Posted on: March 1st, 2011 by Geoff Livingston 12 Comments

love
Image by Aunt Owwee

Recent news from Google has increased the value of good, old fashioned blog links. The dominant search engine has declared war on content farms, effectively wiping out an estimated 11.8% of front page results, primarily those that use black hat SEO tactics such as copying others content. Now more than ever, inbound links are the lifeblood of your content marketing effort.

Links are the currency of the social web, driving word of mouth, third party credibility and earned search engine optimization. The hallmark of the social media revolution — and now the online networked economy — is the referral to someone else’s content. When someone gives your site a positive link, it’s an endorsement of the content. Peer-to-peer recommendations are the foundation of word of mouth credibility. We tend to trust people like us.

While peer trust has declined recently as more people have grown accustomed to social’s strengths and weaknesses, it’s still a critical component of developing earned media impressions and trust. Fostering referrals from other bloggers and content producers through strong editorial strategies and outbound links is the heart of word of mouth development.

Beyond word of mouth value, an editorial recommendation via a link helps increase page rank, a critical component of search algorithms, forming the t backbone of search. You need this for search engine optimization. Without inbound links, Google and other search engines will consider your site irrelevant.

Search engines treat blog links like gold currency because of their frequently updated content. The better ranked the blog, the higher the link quality. Quantity and quality of links drives SEO and blog rankings in a variety of metrics, including indexes like the AdAge Power150, which measures Yahoo! page rank.

And yes, you will receive traffic from inbound links. No, not as much as a real media outlet delivers. This is the long tail of media, but additional traffic is certainly welcome. Who would be foolish enough to complain about more traffic? Consider it gravy on top of the word of mouth and SEO benefits (The Nonprofit Marketing Blog was yesterday’s sixth leading referrer to this blog. Thank you, Katya!) .

So go out, and participate in the generous social web. It’s the best way to earn what you want: Link love.

Do you believe in link love?

Popularity: 1% [?]

How Social Semantic Search Defines People

Posted on: December 15th, 2010 by Geoff Livingston

BORKER-2-popup.jpeg
(Cartoon by David G. Klein from the New York Times)

Search is the underpinning of the Internet today, from the 1 billion traditional searches everyday on Google to providing references about a person on Twitter and delivering their stream feed on Facebook. Search has moved from simple page rank to an increasingly complex algorithm that weight’s social and semantic data points to deliver the outcomes most likely to please you. Personalization of search continues to evolve, but in turn it defines people and their choices.

Search — the technology itself — doesn’t bear responsibility for this. People do. People who use the Internet and its many free tools without understanding how the information is provided to them. They blindly accept search results or the search-based content feed without considering the source.

Consider the DecorMyEyes fiasco broken by the New York Times. Owner Vitaly Borker explained how he used intentionally created negative complaints about DecorMyEyes to game search results and place himself as a top ranked eyeglasses vendor. To Google’s credit, they promptly changed their algorithm to include more semantic weight (all negative or all positive disqualifying you), and the Department of Justice followed up with charges.

Social networks and applications also use search to source preferred content. Facebook’s activity feed is designed to source the most “interesting” content to people in your friends network are using the Open Graph API and likes. Search on Facebook is completely driven by the Open Graph (Like) protocol.

Of course, hashtags have demonstrated the power of search on Twitter. Twitter search was originally based on the acquired Summize search technology, and has been used to reference mentions and trends, too. Now Twitter (and other services) suggests people like you using semantic data.

The Danger of Homogeneous Definition

Google Organic.jpg

The danger in all of this personalized search — particularly when it’s largely based on peer interests — is creating a society of homogeneous sycophants that blindly accept the content sourced to them, either via search or feeds. Lest we think that people actually think through the click, consider organic click through rates on Google (as pictured above by SEO’s Neil Walker). Clicking through on the first few search terms is and has been the norm.

The addition of local semantic data to search only further complicates concepts of popularity. Algorithms tell people which burger joints, music venues, theaters, etc. are most likely to meet their interests.

When popularity is defined by an algorithm and served to people, homogeneos or mob thinking becomes the norm. This thinking feeds on the popular. Society is not currently trained to question the information presented to it. Thus algorithms — designed to create the output that will generate the most click throughs — become a critical determinant in defining people’s lives, and society as a whole.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Semantic information can weigh in when a system is gamed, and social search can provide the latest information based on people’s actual use and check-ins. However, idea markets are increasingly influenced by the popular, and not necessarily in a good way. Algorithms can keep bad ideas popular for longer periods of time.

It all points back to the need for society to teach better information skills. In an information economy, the ability to question and discern quality data presented via a plethora of media is an essential quality for democracy and individualism. It’s important to look deeper at online search, whether that’s because a search provided direct information or because an algorithm sourced a friend or influencer touting an idea or product. Quoting Doug Haslam, “Think for yourself. …you needn’t be part of some pack that can’t brook disagreement with your heroes.”

An educated Fifth Estate creates an evolutionary society, a mindless one creates results like Kim Kardashian as the number one search term on Bing for 2010. While many people find Kardashian attractive, should social semantic search tell every person — man and woman alike — what the icon of attractive is? Parents across America may object.

What do you think about how search and algorithms are defining our society?

Popularity: 1% [?]